G.R. No. 142649 - ANTONIO C. SAN LUIS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. NELSON BAYOT, AS PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, PASAY CITY, BRANCH 118, AND T.N. LAL & CO., LTD..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, he would not act anymore on the motion for reconsideration. [5] A copy of said order was received by petitioner on 8 November 1999. On 7 January 2000, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In the petition, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 56549, petitioner sought to annul Judge Bayot's orders of 15 July 1999 and 22 October 1999 on the ground that the latter acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion when he did not act on petitioner's motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration and, instead, transferred the case to Branch 111 of the court below. [6] In its Resolution of 24 January 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time. [7] Forthwith, petitioner filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" as well as a "Motion to Admit Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus and to Relax Strict Rules on Procedure," both of which the Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution of 13 March 2000. [8] Petitioner is now before us, asking for a liberal application of the procedural rules. He raises the following issues for resolution: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE SAME FOR ITS FAILURE TO FILE THE SAID PETITION ON TIME, OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT THE FAILURE TO FILE THE SAME WAS DUE TO AN HONEST MISTAKE AND HUMAN ERROR IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD FOR FILING THE INSTANT PETITION BY HANDLING COUNSEL. WHETHER OR NOT THE INSTANT CASE IS WARRANTED SO THAT PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS COULD BE REINSTATED AND PROCEED IN DUE COURSE IN ORDER NOT TO DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF ITS [SIC] RIGHT TO PROSECUTE HIS CASE BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS SO THAT IT CAN BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS AND NOT ON ITS TECHNICALITY ASPECT. [9] On the procedural aspect, we rule in favor of petitioner. In finding that the petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed out of time, the Court of Appeals applied Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Resolution of 21 July 1998, which reads: Sec. 4. Where petition filed . The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.